As if more evidence was needed that Sarah Palin is a pop culture celebrity as much as a political figure, she’s now fending off rumors from tabloids and blogs that she’s getting a divorce and moving to Montana.

I take her at her word that these are completely made up but, as David Adesnik notes, “This is one of those stories where truth will out. Either she’s getting a divorce or she isn’t. ”

Jonathan Martin makes the rather odd argument that, by dignifying the rumor, this is all Palin’s fault:

Sarah Palin’s spokeswoman Saturday took the unusual step of posting a statement on Facebook denying an anonymous blog report that the former Alaska governor was getting a divorce and moving to Montana.

[...]

Actually, no journalists had reported the allegations. They were made on an Alaskan blog called “The Immoral Minority,” and then repeated on other blogs, including Gawker, a well-trafficked New York gossip site.

[...]

By having her spokeswoman repeat the charges to rebut them in a public form, Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog.

But that’s nonsense.  Mainstream media sources — including Politico and including Martin (remember the way premature “John Edwards is quitting to be with his sick wife” rumors?) — report rumor and rely on anonymous sources all the time.  The fact that people are talking about something is often in and of itself newsworthy.  Especially when it’s about Sarah Palin.

Timothy Sandefur is embarrassed:

So I was watching this insane video of Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie discussing the War on Terrorism with Mos Def. And it’s amusing to laugh at the utterly hapless ignorance of “Mr. Def,” as he is repeatedly called—until you stop and wonder. Why is the black community not outraged by this? Bill Maher hosts a talk show to discuss the threat of Islamic terrorism and the Middle East, and he invites two world-renowned white male intellectuals and Mos Def? If this show had been choreographed by the Ku Klux Klan it could not have been more infuriating. Did Maher not have the phone number of a black intellectual? Were Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Orlando Patterson, Julian Bond, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter all busy?

Here’s the video:

While I agree entirely that this is an absurd pairing, it’s most definitely not a racist one.  Sandefur has apparently never seen “Real Time with Bill Maher.”  The premise of the show, from its inception more than six years ago, has been to pair politicos and pop culture figures in discussion.  (Whether the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the latter are morons or that their opinions are equally valid, I could never determine.)

Here are the seven season openers.

February 21, 2003. Guests: Author Ann Coulter, actor Larry Miller, writer, radio host and professor Michael Eric Dyson, comedian Sarah Silverman, comedian Chris Rock.  Topics: The UN, Affirmative Action.

January 16, 2004. Guests: Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark, artist Moby, Rev. Al Sharpton, actor Ron Silver, Rep. Darrell Issa. Topics: American values, Iraq, MoveOn.org, environment.

February 18, 2005. Guests: Correspondent Lesley Stahl, actor Robin Williams, former H&HS Sec. Tommy Thompson, Sen. Joe Biden, and actor Don Cheadle. Topics: On protecting sources, Jeff Gannon, on Interrogating prisoners, Iraq elections, Darfur.

February 17, 2006. Guests: Sen. Russ Feingold, commentator Fred Barnes, actor Eddie Griffin, reporter Helen Thomas, Iraq advisor Dan Senor. Topics: Cheney shooting, on the Patriot Act, Bush, Mohammad cartoons.

February 16, 2007. Guests: Fmr Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, fmr Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, TV host Craig Ferguson; via satellite, fmr Sen. John Edwards and basketball player John Amaechi. Topics: Developments in North Korea, Iran, and Iraq; global warming; Mitt Romney and Mormonism; Al Franken Senate campaign.

January 11, 2008. Guests: Entrepreneur Mark Cuban, fmr Court TV anchor Catherine Crier, fmr Bush Press Secy Tony Snow, Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi (election correspondent); via satellite, humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Topics: New Hampshire primary, electronic voting machines, Iraq troop surge, subprime lending and prospects for economic recession.

February 20, 2009. Guests: Financial Times editor Chrystia Freeland, journalist Tina Brown, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA); via satellite, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), journalist Brigitte Gabriel The economy, President Obama’s first month in office.

See the Wikipedia episode guide if you fear the season openers are not representative.

The pairings are, in most if not all cases, patently absurd. They include plenty of famous white guys who would, on the face of things, seem to be woefully out of their elements and plenty of black guys who would seemingly mop of the floor with the competition.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Def was really good in this week’s “House.”

Sarah Palin, in a red leather jacket, waves as she steps on stage before a crowd at a baseball field in Grand Junction, Colo., on Monday.

We’ve had John Edwards’ haircuts, John McCain’s shoes, Michelle Obama’s snacks (a story that turned out to be untrue), and now, Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.  The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Jim Treacher thinks all these stories are a distraction from the real issues.  And, of course, they are.  But these are the sort of stories that seem to resonate with voters.

Matt Yglesias wonders why these expenditures are legal, noting “this seems to open the door to candidates using party committee money as a personal slush fund.”  Kevin Drum snarks that, “I’m sure that after the campaign is over the RNC plans to donate the clothing to homeless shelters in small towns around the country where they don’t have stores like Saks or Barney’s.” Really, this is no worse than Al Gore spending tens of thousands having Naomi Wolfe tell him to wear “earth tones.”

Why, precisely, it costs that kind of money to outfit Sarah Palin in a different red outfit every day, I haven’t a clue.   Presumably, it’s more expensive to dress a woman — McCain and Obama are pretty much required to wear only dark suits and solid white or blue shirts — but this is expensive.  Not to mention the fact that down-to-earth hockey moms — and pit bulls, for that matter — don’t shop at Saks and Neiman Marcus.  Then again, they’re not typically plucked out of virtual obscurity and thrust into the national spotlight right before a national political convention, either.

The GOP has come up with a clever yet bizarre line of attack on Barack Obama: How dare he pass over Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden as his running mate?

As WSJ’s Amy Chozick reported last night, Team McCain debuted a new spot, “Passed Over,” at 3 a.m.:

The timing is a reference to Hillary Clinton’s national security ad during the Democratic primary and the same time the Obama campaign sent out its text message announcing Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the vice-presidential nominee.

“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why?” an announcer says in the 30-second spot.

The answer? “For speaking the truth.”

The ad, which has not yet been released [as of 6:29 yesterday evening], then ticks off a litany of criticism Clinton used against Obama in the prolonged primary, according to a transcript sent to reporters.

“You never hear the specifics,” Clinton says.

“On the Rezko scandal,” the voice says.

“We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama,” Clinton says in footage from the primaries.

“Senator Obama’s campaign has become increasingly negative,” Clinton says in another scene.

The announcer closes by saying “The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it.”

The ad is the latest sign that the presidential contest has grown increasingly personal. It’s also proof that the some times bitter battle between the two Democratic senators has provided useful fodder to the Republican opposition.

The campaign also quickly emailed around a CNN Political Ticker story headlined “Some in Clinton circle ’outraged’.”

Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

“Set aside that Obama said she’d be on anybody’s short list, set aside anybody’s feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her,” a former Clinton strategist told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan…for God’s sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid.”

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were “outraged,” over how the process was conducted.  “You can’t put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics,” this person said. “Barack never even said to her, ‘Here’s how I envision the job’– not one discussion with her about [the position].”

“They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now,” this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it.”

Not to be outdone, Bill Kristol weighs in with a blog post entitled “The Democrats’ Glass Ceiling.”

So Hillary Clinton gets about 18 million votes in 2008, and isn’t even considered for–she apparently isn’t even given the courtesy of being consulted–the vice presidential pick. Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it’s the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).

What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)–neither Biden nor Hillary has any.

Stoking the lingering resentments of the Hillary camp is probably smart politics, although doing it so brazenly could backfire and cause more of them to realize that they’re playing into the Republicans’ hands.  But the idea that Clinton was somehow owed a VP offer is silly.

By Kristol’s logic, Mike Huckabee should be McCain’s running mate.  At the very least, he should be be seriously interviewed and Mitt Romney should get the nod, under the theory that Huckabee only surpassed him because he stayed in the race long after it was over.  Does anyone think McCain is seriously thinking about Huckabee?

Did Obama take “seriously” the idea of putting Hillary on the ticket?  I can’t imagine he didn’t given the delegate math.  But he and his team surely came to the conclusion that giving her the nod would be a disaster, given the hundreds  of sound bytes she gave the GOP and the complications that Bill Clinton brings to the mix.  Having decided that, pretending to interview her for the gig would have arguably been more insulting than moving on to other candidates.

And, please, let’s not pretend that Hillary Clinton has anything like Joe Biden’s foreign policy gravitas.  It’s been his bread and butter since Hillary was in law school.  She’s a junior Senate backbencher whose “experience” until eight years ago consisted of being married to a powerful man.  Did she learn a lot as a result of that partnership?  Sure.  Is it comparable to chairing the Foreign Relations Committee?  Not hardly.

Republican delegrate graphic via CNN.

John Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, was paid $14,000 from his campaign PAC, the AP’s Pete Yost and David Scott report.

Fred Baron, Edwards’ national finance chairman and a wealthy Dallas-based trial attorney, has acknowledged he quietly began sending money to Rielle Hunter, Edwards’ mistress, to resettle in California, along with the family of Andrew Young. Young is the campaign aide who has said he is the father of Hunter’s daughter, born after her affair with Edwards.

[...]

Meanwhile, an earlier payment of $14,000 to Edwards’ mistress from the candidate’s political action committee was exchanged for 100 hours of unused videotape she shot producing short Web movies for which she already had been paid $100,000, an Edwards associate told the AP. Neither Edwards’ advisers or this associate would discuss the purpose of the payment on the record.

That payment from Edwards’ OneAmerica political action committee, which came after Hunter stopped working for it, came in April 2007, months before Baron quietly began sending money himself to Hunter. Baron has described his payments to Hunter as a private transaction.

[...]

Baron’s payments could present legal problems, said Washington attorney Cleta Mitchell, who specializes in campaign finance law and who represents Republican candidates and conservative groups. She said all payments to anyone involved in Edwards’ presidential campaigns — including Hunter and Young — should have been fully disclosed under U.S. campaign finance laws. “That would undermine the purpose of the payments, which was to avoid public disclosure of the affair,” Mitchell said. “The idea that Edwards’ finance chairman can independently hand over substantial sums of money to two campaign workers at a time when Edwards is a candidate and to argue that that is not related to his campaign is a bit preposterous.”

[...]

Legal experts said it was important for Edwards to demonstrate the PAC wasn’t paying Hunter merely to keep her quiet about the affair. “One thing that’s possible is that she was still owed money from what she’d done before for the political action committee, but obviously there are less charitable explanations,” said Richard Hasen, a professor specializing in campaign finance law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Less charitable, indeed.

_________________

Related at OTB:

• John Edwards Love Child Scandal
• John Edwards – Rielle Hunter Scandal Back
• Los Angeles Times Bans Edwards Scandal Story
• John Edwards ‘Love Child’ Photo
• Edwards Admits Affair, Denies Love Child His

Cernig is outraged at the sex-obsessed American press.

I am now officially disgusted with America’s insular and navel-gazing punditry. En masse and on a bipartisan basis the media, commentators and bloggers have decided that the Edwards Affair story is more important than events in South Ossetia. What happened, folks, did your minds cloud over at contemplation of events beyond these hallowed shores?

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why the story of yet another politician who ran as a Loyal Family Man but was unable twice to gain the highest of offfices being revealed as a lying hypocrite unable to keep it in his pants is remotely as newsworthy as a full-on war between one of the world’s great powers and a nation which is a vocal ally of the USA. Because I admit I’m utterly perplexed by the allocation of priorities here.

I almost wrote a variant of that post this morning, whilst looking for updates on the Georgia story and noting that the Edwards story dominated the front page of the Washington Post’s website.  I went to the NYT website, though, and saw that the Georgia story was well covered there and, lacking a hook, let it go.

While Cernig and I are generally on the opposite sides of issues, I respect his integrity so decided to give the story another looksee.  It turns out that, while there’s no doubt that the Edwards story is getting major play, the Russia-Georgia-South Ossetia story is getting far, far more.  Indeed, even the Olympics is getting more coverage than the Edwards story.

The screencap at the top right of this post is from Memeorandum.  As of this writing (6:37 Eastern Saturday evening) even the blogosphere has made Georgia the top focus [a marked contrast from 7:40 am, when, as Cernig's link shows, the top two-thirds of the page was dominated by Edwards coverage].  I say “even” because it’s a relatively hard story to opine upon, in that almost every political blogger already knew who John Edwards is and understood the concepts of lying and adultery.  Conversely, most are catching up on the Russia-Georgia-South Ossetia story.

I went to Newseum, which archives the front pages of virtually every paper in the world, to get a broader sample of the mainstream papers.  I was pleasantly surprised.

The major national papers all gave more prominent treatment to the Russia-Georgia clash than Edwards.

The New York Times:

The Washington Post:

The Wall Street Journal:

Even the conservative Washington Times, which presumably has no love for Edwards, did so:

My hometown paper, the Anniston (Alabama) Star did, too:

Indeed, the only paper I checked that played the Edwards story first — and rightfully so — is the Charlotte Observer, the major paper in Edwards’ home state.

I tend not to watch much television news but I presume that the 24/7 coverage skewed towards the Edwards scandal.  But that’s, no pun intended, a sexier story.

I must admit, I’m surprised by this outcome.  The publishers of papers around the country chose to highlight a story that was very unlikely to sell papers over one that would.  Let’s face it, the average person is much more interested in celebrity sex scandals — and this one has plenty of good angles to it — and not than in foreign policy.  Much less conflicts over obscure secessionist areas.

Let’s face it, most Americans were only vaguely aware until yesterday that there’s a second place called Georgia.  I have my PhD with a specialization in national security policy and would only be somewhat more informed about this conflict than the man on the street if I hadn’t been surrounded for the past several months with smart people who study European politics for a living.

After months of speculation — and, let’s face it, lies — John Edwards has admitted to having an affair with Rielle Hunter but denies that he fathered her child.

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday admitted to an extramarital affair while his wife was battling cancer. He denied fathering the woman’s daughter.

Edwards told ABC News that he lied repeatedly about the affair with a 42-year-old woman but said that he didn’t love her. He said he has not taken a paternity test but knows he isn’t the father because of the timing of the affair and the birth.

ABC said a former Edwards campaign staffer claims he is the father, not Edwards.

Edwards was a top contender for the Democratic nomination for president, pursuing his party’s nod even after announcing that his wife, Elizabeth, had a deadly form of cancer.

Well, at least he doesn’t love her.

Ugh. What a sad mess.

We have further confirmation, though: that the National Enquirer is more believable than the New York Times.

Blogger Reax:

• John Hawkins is a strong contender for Least Tasteful Headline: “Silky Pony Admits To Lesbian Affair With Rielle Hunter: Mainstream Media & Kos Hardest Hit.”

• Tom Maguire wins the Best (If Obvious) Pun Award: “Oh, get Rielle.“  His headline’s not bad, either: “He Did Not Have Paternal Relations With That Woman.

• Steve Benen has the same reaction as most of us, I suspect: “I will never, ever understand what someone in John Edwards’ position was thinking.”

• Sister Toldjah: “The mainstream mediots dropped the ball on this one, an we all know why (hint: The “D” in “D-NC”).”

• Joe Sudbay: “I’m not condemning Edwards. I don’t care. But, if the GOPers or the traditional media decide to make a big issue out of this one, I have one question: Where’s Vicki Iseman?” [The woman who denies having had an affair with John McCain and whom McCain denies having an affair with despite sleezy front page charges in the NYT?  The one that was nonetheless talked about for several days during this campaign despite the alleged affair happening in 2000? That Vicki Iseman? - ed.]

• Jim Geraghty: “If you’ve got bad news, put it out late on a Friday*. Like, you know, admitting an affair when you’ve been insisting for weeks that the rumor was ‘tabloid trash.’”

• Alex Pareene: “[H]e didn’t love her. So it’s not cheating!”

• Kevin Drum:  “Mainstream media, you may now begin covering this story.”

• Michelle Malkin wonders, “Does this mean he’ll get to speak at the DNC now? The other big Democrat liar/cheater’s already secured his spot, you know. “

Many more at Memeorandum:  TalkLeft, The Swamp, Little Green Footballs,  Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, The Jawa Report, Top of the Ticket, New York Post, Ben Smith’s Blogs, TMZ.com, Gawker, TVNewser, Political Machine, Washington Post,  Don Surber, TIME.com, QandO, Wake up America,  PSoTD, PoliticalBase.com Blog, Macsmind, JammieWearingFool,  Stop The ACLU, Gateway Pundit, Ed Driscoll.com, Readers’ Representative … and National Review

I believe it’s shower time.

UPDATE: David Bonior lets Edwards have it with both barrels.

David Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, said Friday he was disappointed and angry after hearing about Edwards’ confession.  “Thousands of friends of the senators and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him and he’s let them down,” said Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan. “They’ve been betrayed by his action.”

Asked whether the affair would damage Edwards’ future aspirations in public service, Bonior replied: “You can’t lie in politics and expect to have people’s confidence.”

Although, as Malkin notes, Bill Clinton managed to do it.  Even after being impeached and confessing to his lies, he enjoyed tremendous popularity.  Then again, Edwards isn’t Clinton.  And Clinton’s wife wasn’t battling cancer, either.

_________________

Related at OTB:

• John Edwards Love Child Scandal
• John Edwards – Rielle Hunter Scandal Back
• Los Angeles Times Bans Edwards Scandal Story
• John Edwards ‘Love Child’ Photo

I am assured by the folks at National Enquirer that these are THE PHOTOS EVERYONE’S BEEN WAITING FOR!

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is releasing the photograph that the world has been waiting for – the first-ever picture of John Edwards and his love child!

The stunning “spy photo” shows the former presidential contender holding his infant daughter Frances Quinn Hunter at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles – where the ENQUIRER caught him visiting the baby’s mother, his mistress Rielle Hunter.

Edwards is holding his love child while standing in front of a distinctive striped curtain.  The same window covering hangs in each one of the hotel’s guest rooms – and is clearly visible in photos of guest rooms on the hotel’s Web site.

“These photos are damning proof,” said a source close to the situation.  “He’s been caught lying about his affair with Rielle and their love child for many months – and now the proof against him is piling up.  His elaborate coverup is unraveling at the seams.”

TO SEE THE EXCLUSIVE SPY PHOTOS AND LEARN ALL THE SHOCKING DETAILS pick up The ENQUIRER– on sale now!

Or, it could be John Edwards with some random baby and all PhotoShopped.  Who knows these days?

But the Enquirer is certainly right that a whole lot of people are interested in this story, even if its coverage has been almost exclusively limited to the tabloids and blogs.

Via memeorandum, where the discussion will soon heat up.

Related at OTB:

• John Edwards Love Child Scandal
• John Edwards – Rielle Hunter Scandal Back
• Los Angeles Times Bans Edwards Scandal Story

Via Mickey Kaus, we learn that the Los Angeles Times has apparently banned its bloggers from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story.

From: “Pierce, Tony”

Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT

To: [XXX]

Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,

Tony

Now, the only thing about the Hunter story that actually interests me is the inside baseball: The fact that it might have the beneficial side effect of preventing Edwards from being appointed to an Attorney General position for which he is supremely unqualified in an Obama Administration. Other than that, I really don’t care whether Edwards was at that hotel visiting Hunter or not. Nor do I care if her child is his or if he was sleeping with her while his wife had cancer.

No, the reason I mention this ban is to point out that the Times was not hobbled by any such scruples when John McCain was accused — on much thinner evidence — of having possibly, maybe, sort of having had an inappropriate relationship with Vicki Iseman almost a decade earlier. In fact, a search of the Times website for her name brings up 101 results. Doubtless they’d argue that the Enquirer isn’t a credible source. But the same could be (and was) said of the two anonymous and admittedly disgruntled former aides who were peddling the Iseman story.

One needn’t leap to any conclusions here; one need only take a small step and there conclusions are.

UPDATE (James Joyner): Don Frederick and Andrew Malcolm run an interesting site at Top of the Ticket, so I’m a bit bemused that Pierce, pictured above from his days running the LAist gossip rag, is stepping in to teach them professional journalistic ethics.

John Edwards has been spotted back together with his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter.

The married ex-senator from North Carolina – whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer — met with his mistress, blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night July 21 – and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn’t leave until early the next morning. Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.

But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER broke the story of Edwards’ love child scandal last year, when Rielle was still pregnant and Edwards was still considered a strong candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both parties denied the NATIONAL ENQUIRER report and a close friend of Edwards’ came forward and said he was the father of Rielle’s baby. But sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER a far different story – they revealed that Edwards was engineering a massive cover up of his shocking infidelity.

Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.

But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own.

This is the National Enquirer we’re talking about here, not the Washington Post.  Then again, as Byron York points out, “the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin story was broken by the Enquirer, and the press ran with that one.”  Indeed, the Enquirer breaks legitimate scandals all the time.  But they run with all manner of nonsense too — they just don’t care so long as they sell papers.

I discovered the story via a spate of referrals to my previous post on this, “John Edwards Love Child Scandal” (see it for back story) and was going to relegate it to Gone Hollywood until I saw that it had reached Memeorandum.  As with traditional media (and Pajamas Media!), the fact that a story is being covered elsewhere makes mere rumor necessary to cover.

Edwards has been widely touted for another run as vice president, although I can’t see why he’d want to go through that again, especially with his wife in ill health.  Certainly, those facts would make the scandal worse, if true.  Frankly, I hope it isn’t.

NYT Katharine Seelye reports on a panel on bloggers and swearing at Netroots Nation (the successor to YearlyKos) and finds that the trend is toward less of it and that most of what remains is coming from Amanda Marcotte.

Digby Parton, who writes on Hullabaloo.com, said she initially thought of her blog as an ephemeral form of conversation among friends and used vulgarities freely. But now she is read by a substantially wider circle and has cleaned up her language.  “I don’t use the same amount of profanity,” she said. “We’re taken much more seriously as a political force,” and she has a stronger sense that her words are “out there for posterity.”

[...]

Kevin Drum, who writes the more proper Political Animal blog for the Washington Monthly, said he tones it down “because my mother reads my blog.”  “I used to swear a lot,” he said. “I like swearing, and I love reading people who do it well.” But he said he discovered that “a lot of people really don’t like it and I shut it down,” both in his personal life and his writing life.

Next on the panel was Duncan Black, aka Atrios of the blog Eschaton and a fellow at Media Matters, who questioned why certain words were perceived as bad when they were describing policies that were truly horrific.  “I’ve toned it down a little bit over the years,” he said, but he added that if he wants to use a certain word, he does.

Amanda Marcotte, who writes on pandagon.net and had been the blogmaster for John Edwards’s presidential campaign until some of her outside writings were deemed anti-Catholic, described her stance on the matter this way: “I curse and I’m vulgar and I make really, really dirty jokes.” She said she uses obscenities to entertain people and “to show hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of society.”

[...]

Digby said she was not comfortable criticizing people about their appearance. Ms. Marcotte said she tried to see how vulgar she could be “without crossing the line into being sexist.” She added: “My vulgarity stands out because people can’t believe a young woman is saying these things.”

I’m pretty much in line with Kevin on this one and for the same reasons.

Story via Memeorandum.  Images from Lindsay Beyerstein’s Netroots Nation photo stream.

Jane Hamsher wants to know, “If You Can’t Use a Computer, How Can You Be President?”

I chuckled when I saw the story at memeorandum since, after all, it’s unlikely that any president before Bill Clinton could “use” a computer in any meaningful sense. (Maybe Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear engineer in a past life, could, too, but proficiency with punch cards probably didn’t come into play very often during his stint in the White House.)

Clicking the link, I see that Jane is echoing an idea put fort by Tracy Russo, who served as John Edwards’ chief blogger. Mark Soohoo, John McCain’s deputy e-campaign manager, who recently said, “You don’t necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country. … John McCain is aware of the Internet.”

Jane summarizes Russo’s retort: “Tracy said most emphatically that you do, and that someone who is going to be expected to lead the country through the social, political, economic and communication upheavals that are happening as a result of the changes in computer and online technology very much needs to be able to use one.”

This strikes me as nonsensical. I’d venture that 99.9 percent of daily computer users have no clue whatsoever about said upheavals and that some tiny fraction of those who do has any idea what public policy responses, if any, would be appropriate.

It’s a rare day that I don’t spend twelve hours in front of a computer. Furthermore, studying politics is my livelihood and I’ve been at it for more than a quarter century now. While I’m by no means a power user, I’m on Fark, Digg, Reddit, Facebook, LinkedIn and various other social media outlets more than most. And I’m something of an amateur sociologist, interested very much in cultural changes. Yet, I wouldn’t pretend to any especial expertise in analyzing these “upheavals” of which Russo speaks.

Going out on a limb, I’d also guess that Russo’s in the same boat. She’s a communications professional, field organizer, and fundraiser. I’m guessing that she’s not on the short list for the National Security Council.

Photo: Assistive Technologies

WaPo fronts a new poll they’ve commissioned in partnership with ABC News under the headline “3 in 10 Americans Admit to Race Bias Survey Shows Age, Too, May Affect Election Views.”

While it’s somewhat surprising that nearly a third of Americans admit to “at least some feelings of racial prejudice” (30 percent of whites, 34 percent of blacks, and 27 percent of “Others”), the offsets are more interesting. Let’s look inside the poll itself.

• Nearly double the number of people (40 percent) said that age was important as compared to race (23 percent), although those saying it was very important were about the same (12 percent and 13 percent, respectively).

• Obama has better favorables (63 percent) than McCain (56 percent) and much higher strongly favorables (35 to 18 percent). And virtually no one has “no opinion” of either candidate.

Only two issues rate double digits as “the single most important issue in your choice for president:” Economy/Jobs (33 percent) and Iraq/War in Iraq (19 percent). The only other answers with significant response were Health care (8 percent), Gas/Oil prices/Energy (6 percent), and Terrorism/National security (4 percent). Obama gets higher “trust more” ratings than McCain on virtually every issue:

Obama also beats or ties McCain on the important values questions:

Ideologically, 52 percent think Obama is “just right” as compared to only 40 percent for McCain. The internals, though, are more interesting:

• 36 percent think Obama is “too liberal” compared to only 5 percent who say he’s “too conservative”

• 34 percent think McCain is “too conservative” but 19 percent say he’s “too liberal”!

So, despite whatever damage the prolonged primary battle may have done to Obama’s support among Democrats, McCain has much more mending to do with his natural base. Interestingly, McCain’s “too liberal” numbers are comparable to what they were in 2000. His “too conservative” numbers have doubled.

Otherwise:

• On the national security front, the results split as to which candidates they favored. 65 percent support withdrawal from Iraq and 61 percent disagreed with the idea that “non-citizens suspected of terrorism . . . should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system.” [UPDATE: Commenter Houston points out that I'm omitting the non-standalone questions in my analysis here. Indeed, if we look at those surveyed under "issues," national security is stronger for McCain. McCain leads 49-43 on "international affairs," 47-46 on "War in Iraq," and 53 to 39 on terrorism. The second of those is particularly odd given that 65 percent want us out of Iraq, which is much closer to Obama's position than McCain's.]

• And people value “New direct and new ideas” more highly than “Strength and experience” by a 50 to 43 margin.

• The only hopeful sign for McCain, seemingly contradicting some of the above findings, is that more people (56 to 52 percent) think he is a “safe choice for president” and slightly more people (46 to 42 percent) think Obama is a “risky choice for president. At roughly the same time in 2000, 59 percent thought George W. Bush was safe and 38 percent thought he was risky compared to 57 percent and 40 percent for Al Gore.

Also of interest:

• Slightly more (72 percent) of Obama’s voters say they will definitely vote for him as compared to 69 percent of McCain’s.

• Only 50 percent think Obama has “the kind of experience it takes to serve effectively as president.” (The question was apparently not asked about McCain.) Yet, 43 percent lean toward Obama compared to only 42 percent for McCain.

• 57 percent though McCain would “mainly continue in George W. Bush’s direction” vice 38 percent who thought he’d “mainly lead the country in a new direction.”

• 77 percent think a president “SHOULD be willing to meet with leaders of foreign countries that are hostile toward the United States because talking can improve relations and avoid confrontation.”

• 39 percent of Democrat leaners want to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination. Yet 75 percent are satisfied or enthusiastic about the outcome.

• 46 percent would like to see Hillary Clinton as Obama’s running mate. John Edwards, with 8 percent, is the only other candidate getting meaningful support.

• 50 percent favor “smaller government with fewer services” compared to 45 percent who favor “larger government with more services”

• Only 19 percent consider themselves to be “a feminist,” compared to 77 percent who did not

• 43 percent rate themselves as Moderates, 33 percent as Conservative, and only 21 percent as Liberal

The sample group seems to be somewhat skewed:

• 27 percent were aged 50-64 and another 16 percent 65+

• 54 percent had at least some college, with 11 percent having post-graduate degrees

• 18 percent made less than $20,000 a year

I’m skeptical of some of the other numbers, as well. For example, 75 percent claim to be following the election closely, with 34 percent saying they’re following “closely.” This roughly mirrors the numbers from this point in 2004 (78 percent) and is up a quarter from this point in 2000 (49 percent). 71 percent say they’re certain to vote and 81 percent claim they’re registered to vote at their present address. These answers simply don’t reflect reality. In 2004, which had the highest turnout in a generation, only 60.7 percent of eligible voters showed up. And this is a survey of “adults,” not registered, let alone likely, voters.

These answers — and perhaps those to the race questions, as well — are quite probably skewed by people telling pollsters what they think they’re expected to say rather than the truth. Indeed, the fact that nearly a third of respondents were willing to admit some racial prejudice (admittedly, after a strong of questions where they could demonstrate that they had friends of other colors and so forth) is surprising.

In the long months between now and the conventions, one recurring theme we’ll see in the press and the punditocracy is speculation of who Barack Obama and John McCain will chose as running mates. None of us have any idea, of course, other than that Dick Cheney is not on anybody’s list. But it’s still fun to speculate.

For Obama, the most prominent names I’ve seen, aside from Hillary Clinton of course, are former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (Motto: He did so well in 2004), Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius (a white woman who’s much less annoying than Hillary), former NATO commander and Marine Commandant Jim Jones (my boss’ boss at the Atlantic Council), former NATO commander and 2004 also-ran Wesley Clark and, now, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. Former Reagan SECNAV and current Virginia Senator Jim Webb, widely touted by myself and others, seems to have fallen out of favor. Also, since Jim Johnson has been ousted, we’re pretty sure that Obama won’t pull a Dick Cheney and pick his selection committee chairman.

Clinton, Edwards, and Sebelius would be traditional choices made for standard political reasons. Jones, Clark, or Nunn would be an admission that national security is a huge issue and that Obama needs help there. Frankly, unless he puts Jeremiah Wright on the ticket, I’m not sure it much matters.

The conventional wisdom is probably right that McCain’s VP choice matters more than Obama’s simply because of McCain’s age. At 72, it’s hard to see him running for a second term and, let’s face it, he’s more likely than his 45-year-old opponent to die in office.

Speculation centers on former 2008 challengers Mitt Romney (less conservative than McCain but more favored among conservatives), Mike Huckabee (reducing the Republican Party to its essential element), Louisiana governor and boy wonder Bobby Jindal (half McCain’s age and “of color”), Florida Governor Charlie Crist (who’s from Florida), Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who’s a woman), and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who’s not only a woman but good looking by VP candidate standards). Nobody’s much talking about Condi Rice anymore, given that distancing himself from President Bush is a key McCain priority. Former Democrat Joe Lieberman is a Hail Mary dark horse, creating a possible RINO-DINO* ticket.

Frankly, I’m not particularly enthusiastic with any of the above options. Palin and Jindal are interesting choices but make no sense for a candidate betting the ranch on national security expertise. Huckabee is simply a non-starter, since he alienates pretty much everyone who isn’t a die hard Evangelical. Hutchinson and Crist are safe but boring. Lieberman is the boldest choice, simultaneously doubling down on the Iraq bet and appealing to moderates, but he also energizes a large part of the Democratic base and irritates McCain’s conservative critics on domestic issues.

Is there someone out there that can simultaneously 1) help McCain carry a swing state, 2) bolster his conservative credentials, 3) complement the “Ready on Day One” message?

Image via HuffPo

___________

*Technically, Lieberman’s no longer a Democrat in name but there’s no cute acronym for “Caucusing With the Democrats But Poking them in the Eye with a Sharp Stick Whenever Possible” — much less one which rhymes with RINO.

Rumors have been circulating all day that Hillary Clinton was going to give up her bid for the nomination before the convention after all. The Politico’s Ben Smith reported early this morning that Clinton was calling all her advance staffers to New York to let them go. Then again, Smith also reported that John Edwards would drop out after learning his wife, Elizabeth, had a cancer relapse. Then again, in hindsight, that might have been best.

This afternoon, Tom Edsall broke word that Clinton has “summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama – if not that night, within a day or two.”

Now, ABC News’ Sarah Amos adds another log to the fire:

Speaking to a crowd in Milbank, SD former President Bill Clinton admitted that today could be the last time he has such an active role in presidential politics. “I want to say also that this may be the last day I’m ever involved in a campaign of this kind.”

And, it turns out, both Hillary and Obama are both going to be in NYC tomorrow!

Then again, this could be — and likely is — mere wishful thinking. True, the superdelegates appear to be flocking to Obama now, putting him over the top. And it’s almost inconceivable that, absent a Bobby Kennedy scenario, Obama doesn’t get the nomination. But nothing in Clinton’s makeup suggests she’ll let those minor details get in her way.

Dean Barnett speculates that Clinton is just pretending to be gracious while expecting the Michelle Obama “whitey” video to come out and destroy her opponent’s campaign.

If the Obama campaign does self-destruct, Hillary can use her 24 hours of graciousness as a signal that she cared more about the party than her own ambitions all along, and thus is the perfect person to reunite the party.

If true, it would rock like the proverbial pony. But it seems bloody unlikely.